A person who has been registered as a representative director on the corporate register is presumed to actually operate the company.

A person who is registered as a representative director on the corporate register shall be deemed to be operating the company and the taxation is legitimate, and the claimant shall prove the fact that it is not.

2017Guhap324 Demanding revocation of the assessment of global income tax

KimA

GG Head of GG Tax Office

November 28, 2017

January 23, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 12,745,680 on April 19, 2016 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on April 19, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BB industry development company (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”) was established on September 3, 2009 for the purpose of building construction business and civil engineering construction business on December 5, 2016, and was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act. The Plaintiff was registered as the representative director on the corporate register of the non-party company from September 3, 2009 to January 18, 201, the date of incorporation.

B. As the non-party company did not report corporate tax for the 2010 business year, the head of HH head of the tax office estimated the amount of income according to the ratio based on the standard competition, and deemed the above amount to have reverted to the Plaintiff as the representative director of the non-party company, and accordingly disposed of the income upon recognition on April 2, 2016. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income to the Plaintiff. On April 19, 2016, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff the global income tax amounting to 12,745,680 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 26, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on December 15, 2016. The purport of the entire pleadings and the purport of each disposition is legitimate.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was registered in the corporate register of the non-party company in the form of representative director, and did not actually operate the non-party company. Thus, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the actual representative of the

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The main text of Article 106(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the difference between the tax base determined pursuant to Article 104(2) and the net income on the balance sheet of the corporation (referring to the amount which has not been deducted as corporate tax amount) shall be the bonus from the disposal of profits to the representative. In full view of the relevant provisions, the representative must be the de facto operator of the company. Even if the company was registered on the corporate register even if it was actually operated, such recognized income cannot be deemed as attributed to the representative unless it was actually operated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010). However, since a person who is registered as the representative on the corporate register can be presumed to have actually been operating the company, the representative must prove that the representative on the corporate register did not actually operate the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du187, Apr. 24, 2008).

① In the corporate register of the non-party company, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director from September 3, 2009 to January 18, 201, the date of incorporation, and the register of shareholders of the non-party company also entered as a shareholder holding 2,000 shares, which are 40% of total number of outstanding shares.

② The KimCC prepared and submitted a certificate of personal seal impression and seal from the Plaintiff on the premise that the director was registered in the company outside Korea, but registered the Plaintiff as the representative director without the Plaintiff’s consent. However, although the non-party company appeared as a witness in this court and stated to the same effect, it is difficult to believe that the above office lease agreement (No. 3-1) submitted by the non-party company after its business registration around September 2009 and the written objection (No. 3-2) dated June 23, 2016 regarding the disposition of this case were reversed, and that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the above office lease agreement and the written objection are identical to the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the above office lease agreement.

③ From August 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted a certificate of employment (Evidence A2) as evidence, alleging that the Plaintiff served as a photographor respectively from Dos Pidio located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, and from 1 July 2010 to 30 December 2013, 2013. The Plaintiff submitted a certificate of employment (Evidence A2) by asserting that the Plaintiff was employed as a photographor. On the list of reports on daily employment income belonging to 2,70,000,000 won for January 1, 2010, 202, and 2,040,000,000 won for February, 1, 2010, and 2,080,000 won for April 1, 200, and in light of the fact that the Plaintiff received the above benefits from ESte’s benefits, it is difficult to view it as it appears as it is.

④ While the Plaintiff asserted that KimCC had registered the Plaintiff as a representative director and a shareholder of the non-party company without permission, the Plaintiff did not take any measures, such as filing a criminal complaint against KimCC.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.